High CourtsSingle Bench

S. Thanikodi vs Ramuthayee

Madras High Court · Decided on 11 February 1985 · Citation: AIR 1986 Mad 263 : (1985) 98 LW 164

HON’BLE JUDGES
Maheswaran, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 23(2), 9
CASE NUMBER
C.M.S.A. No. 76 of 1984
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 247 words

Maheswaran, J.

1.

This Civil MisceIlaneous Second Appeal is directed against the order of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, dismissing the

petition by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. The husband-appellant filed a petition against the wife, the respondent, seeking restitution

of conjugal rights. The Courts below have clearly found that the wife has filed a suit for maintenance and that this application for restitution is filed

as a counter blast to that suit for maintenance.

2.

The only ground, the counsel for the appellant takes is that the Courts below erred in not attempting a reconciliation between the parties. It is no

doubt true that S. 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act casts a duty on the Court in the first instance, in a matrimonial cause, to bring about a

reconciliation between the parties. But, it. is only when the Courts find that there may be some chance of saving the marriage that the Court would

try to make a rapprochement and not otherwise. The Courts below have not attempted reconciliation obviously because they did not find any

chance of the parties coming together. The failure to make such an attempt will no doubt amount to an omission, but it will not take away the

jurisdiction of the Court to pass a decree for restitution or to dismiss a claim for restitution. No substantial question of law arises in this case. The

civil miscellaneous second appeal is dismissed in limine.

3.

Appeal dismissed.